How to measure success for the end-of-year Wallabies tour

Rugby types frequently wax lyrical about something called the ‘Australian way’, a mythical beast that alludes to dashing running, intelligent forward play and sweeping backline moves that leave a humbled foe slurping mud in the wake of a gold jersey avalanche.

Having never seen this mythical beast, I confess to preferring the South African style of brutal forward bludgeoning that trades grace for bone rattling. Yes, I’m clearly missing some Straya in my DNA.

Regardless of that shameful admission, something that unites all Wallabies fans is a burning desire to just win. However, the frank and brutal assessment is that the team is short international-quality players in several positions, executing the fundamentals is an occasional feat, discipline is optional and, if there is a plan, it is beyond our plodding cattle.

Painfully the Wallabies’ best case for the end-of-year Test series is a 3-2 result. Even the most fanciful supporter would accept France and Ireland as beyond unlikely. Disturbingly, the worst case is five loses based on the Italians channelling their win over Wales. With the Italy Test falling between France and Ireland and in the middle of a long tour, five Wallabies losses is a very real risk.

With a losing tour a very real probability, what other measures can we use to judge the end-of-year series?

Gameplan

Over the past few years, Dave Rennie has attempted to develop a competitive player base from within the limited talent on offer, and in a sparingly few moments of sustained lucid play there is the vague outline of a game plan just waiting to be implemented. The problem is that those moments of lucidity are perishingly few and the skills and ability of the players are below those needed to achieve the plan.

While Rennie is not responsible for the below-par foundational skills, he owns responsibility for a plan the players are incapable of implementing.

Ten is an easy, if overused, example, with Rennie having roughly 1.75 players capable of playing the role he needs. Of these, the No. 1 is injured and doubtful of returning, and the 0.75 is Bernard Foley, who gets close but not quite there. Foley also comes at a cost – there’s a reason he defended on the wing under Nathan Grey – but reverting to that model offers an even darker future.

From the young blokes, Noah Lolesio is being asked to stand shallow and take twice as many touches he normally does at the Brumbies, where he stands deep beside a wizened No. 12, who really is a second five-eighth. The next two, Ben Donaldson and Tane Edmed, are unlikely to be ready by the RWC.

What we want to see during the series is a game plan wound back to something more achievable for a player with a limited skill set.

During the Rugby Championship the transition from forwards to backs ball was telegraphed for the Wallabies and jarring in comparison to the Boks and All Blacks, with this clear telegraphing simplifying the defensive task and limiting the effectiveness of the sweeping backline plays on the few occasions the passes stuck.

A simpler game plan, with the No. 10 standing closer to the No. 9 and forwards still running the inside line, would alleviate some pressure on challenged 10s while maintaining a basic level of uncertainty for the defender.

What does success look like? The Wallabies being able to maintain shape and application of the game plan for repeated, multiple phases in all five matches.

Competitiveness

The fluctuating performances of the Wallabies during the Rugby Championship were more depressing than the losses. No sooner than we saw James Slipper’s first post-match team gee-up than the team wore a flogging in the shape of San Juan. This defined the championship for the Wallabies – a good performance followed by trash. Even the good performances were often marred by a slow start to the game, leaving the Wallabies needing to claw back rather than competing from scoreboard parity.

It’s difficult to define exactly what is needed here. After six years of Michael Cheika’s full-bodied motivational style, maybe the team needs the occasional verbal rogering to get the juices flowing. Maybe players who are struggling to achieve the standard required for one game can’t back up for the second. Maybe it’s the complication of the aforementioned game plan or any number of other factors, but the only player who consistently gave 100 per cent and then some for the last six Tests is Marika Koroibete, and he isn’t touring.

(Photo by Morgan Hancock/Getty Images)

So what does success look like? This is a long tour with Tests week in, week out. There is no time for trialling new moves or combinations, and the bruises simply aren’t going to heal. What we want to see is a Wallabies team that is committed to the battle from the kick-off until the final whistle. If a win is unachievable, then at least stay in the fight. Turn and chase every break in the defence and apply intensity of effort when skill is deficient. A passing grade on this is to lose by no more than a converted try each game. This doesn’t mean a try and six penalties; it is seven points or less.

Retention of own ball

Even if Hooper immediately returns to his best, the team is light on jackalling threats, so our ability to recover the ball becomes the ability to force an error. With that in mind, the best way of giving the more limited Wallabies attack a chance is to keep control of the pill when they have it. This is controlling phase ball so that runners have the discipline to run to support, not away from it, and that there is always a small herd of forwards charging towards the collision. Lines need to be adjusted to keep the ball close to support, limiting the already limited attack but ensuring there is one more Wallabies phase to follow.

During the Rugby Championship the Wallabies required approximately twice as many runs to achieve the same meterage as the All Blacks and Boks, which suggests a few factors, with the most notably being a lack of ability to bend the line. With Matt Philip and Angus Bell missing and Taniela Tupou off form, Rob Valetini is the only reliable tight runner. Will Skelton should address this for his three Tests, but this leaves an even bigger hole for the other two, and Australia need to accept that a good outcome is just reaching the ad line. Very rarely will they advance beyond it. So more runs, overcoming the defence through weight of effort.

When talking retention, set piece and kicking are also factors, so measuring effectiveness means avoiding scrum penalties, at least on own feed, and retaining the ball on attacking lineouts. An occasional steal on defence would be nice, but just retaining control of attacking ball would suffice.

The measure for kicking is purpose: if it’s a contestable kick, then there must be chasers; if it’s field position, then it needs to find grass and distance; if the kick is defensive, it must support the setting of the defensive. This may need kicks based on field position to be rigidly scripted into the game plan, removing decisions from the kicker’s dilemma to let them focus on execution.

What does success look like? Winning 90 per cent of lineouts and scrums on own feed, keeping turnover low and ensuring kicks have both purpose and support.

Summary

Expectations of the Wallabies during the end-of-year Test are necessarily low, and this article seeks to propose other measures to judge improvement in the absence of wins. While writing this, I was struck by how limiting the key performance indicators are, but they are a fair reflection of the state of the team.

Generating improvements in the application of a more limited game plan, improved competitiveness and retaining own ball will at least advance the team towards a stronger base for building to next year’s World Cup. It will also simplify the expectations and integration of new players when the inevitable injuries or losses see change.

Ideally, this tour would have moved the Wallabies close to knowing the best 23 for the Rugby World Cup. Sadly, I don’t see this as a realistic outcome, and the best that supporters can hope is that a few individuals will cement their positions in the squad.